Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. This is an appeal by the reverted Assistant Branch Managers (Sales) of the Life Insurance Corporation whose substantive cadre is Development Officers. An order of reversion aggrieved them, thus, they filed the writ petition. Since the contention is on their reversion, it is implied that they had received promotions. The promotions were to the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales). The criteria of promotion was based on an office memorandum dated 12 August, 1992. 2. The petitioners have challenged the judgment by which they apparently did not receive the total relief. The writ petition was allowed only partly. The relief inasmuch as could be granted to the effect that the Life Insurance Corporation be put on a direction, in effect, to consider the case of the petitioners-appellants for promotion along with other eligible candidates in accordance. with the provisions of the Rules governing promotions of certain notifications / instructions which may have been quashed. This apparently was based on an order of another High Court. A similar order in the context of the present case was quashed. But this would not help the petitioners-appellants. The criteria for considering the promotion was laid down in this very office order. 3. The pleadings which were exchanged in the writ petition, the Court is constrained to remark were shabby on both sides. The petitioners-appellants never came out with the full facts. These facts were relating to their inefficiency. The petitioners were seeking promotion, but in effect, were not coming out with a correct picture that they were not actually efficient. On the other hand, on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation a counter affidavit which was filed was by a petty officer holding a post of higher grade assistant. This sort of pleadings answered by a petty officer whether by State respondents or statutory corporation is disrespect to the High Court. Officers of higher rank, those who take and execute decisions are obliged to answer pleadings, and have answered by clerks. 4. In the counter affidavit it is acknowledged that there were others, one name is specific, who received promotion for virtually proven inefficiency. The defence is that it was granted by the zonal officer who had no authority to grant it. On the inefficiency of the petitioners-appellants the details are given in the counter affidavits. 4. In the counter affidavit it is acknowledged that there were others, one name is specific, who received promotion for virtually proven inefficiency. The defence is that it was granted by the zonal officer who had no authority to grant it. On the inefficiency of the petitioners-appellants the details are given in the counter affidavits. The contention now is that the circumstance of the petitioners inefficiency has been sufficiently explained in the counter affidavit. What is being conveyed is that there was no obligation on the Life Insurance Corporation to give prior notice to the petitioners who were being reverted from the post of Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) to their substantive post of Development Officer. The fact is that they were being reverted. On this there is no issue. This is accepted both by the petitioners and the respondents alike. 5. Thus, one thing is clear that this entire confusion arose because an officer within the Life Insurance Corporation went about giving promotions when he had no authority. The Life Insurance Corporation has to take care of the situation as irregularities were persisted within the management. In the circumstances all those who received such promotions with a track record of inefficiency cannot claim promotions as of right. And yet such officers who gave this irregular promotions as they did not have the authority are also answerable to the management as misusing unplaced power which is a misdemeanour. 6. The petitioners-appellants will not get much out of the present Letters Patent Appeal either except that they are entitled to be indicated the inefficiency attributed to them. 7. With the observation of the Court, as in this order, the appeal is disposed of.